ORDER

Date : 22-06-2020 Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Pubic Prosecutor representing the SIC(Vigilance), State of Arunachal Pradesh.

This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, 1973 praying for granting of anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with SIC (VIG) P.S. case No.03/20, under sections 468/469/471/120(B) of IPC, read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation against the accused who is a Statistical Officer under the Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh is that she had acted as a broker for collecting money from candidates who appeared in the competitive examination held for the post of LDC by APSSB in the year 2020.

Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner is a patient of Gouty Arthritis and also of heart ailment. Therefore, she was admitted in Tomo Riba Institute of Health and Medical Sciences on 17.06.2020, and she has been advised to go outside the State for further investigations and treatment. As such, if she is arrested and kept in custody at this stage, she would suffer irreparable lost.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the accused/petitioner being an officer of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and a well settled women she will not abscond to avoid the investigation and trial of the case rather, at any time she is required to do she will cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail.

Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that as per the CD of the case there are materials which strongly indicates the culpability of the accused/petitioner, as such, it would not be in the interest of the investigation to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage.

I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and also perused the application, the affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioner. I have also perused the CD of the case placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. There is no doubt that there are sufficient materials, showing prima facie, involvement of the accused in the offence charged in the FIR case. However, the fact that the accused/petitioner is a women still serving in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and suffering from various ailments for which she is in the hospital at the moment cannot be lost sight of. In fact, the medical certificate issued by the doctor under whose care she is under treatment shows that she is advised to go outside the state for further investigations and treatment.

Further, it has also been submitted that the statement of the accused/petitioner has been recorded.

It is also clear from the record and from the contents of the CD that investigation is almost completed as far as the accused/petitioner is concerned.

Keeping all the above in view, specially the fact that she is in the hospital and requires to go outside the State for further investigations and treatment I am of the view that the petition can be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. As such, in case the petitioner is arrested, she should be granted bail on furnishing of a P/R bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety bond of the like amount. During the pendency of the investigation the accused/petitioner should co-operate with the I.O of the FIR case and should not indulge in any act or activities which will hamper or delay the investigation. She should also not indulge in tempering with the evidence of the case. She shall also abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the I.O.

The anticipatory bail is disposed of.

Copy of this order be made available to the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant